Nasty, threatening text messages are not free speech -- especially not when the sender has a history of domestic violence and has a restraining order limiting what he can say to his ex-wife, a state appellate court ruled this week.

The decision denied the appeal of a New York man who was convicted last year of sending his Somerset County wife the violent message after the two had exchanged texts about paying for their daughter's drug abuse treatment.

The two were described in the decision only by their initials.

The man, who has a history of domestic violence against his ex-wife when they were married, was barred in 2002 by a family court judge sitting in Somerville from communicating with her unless it was about their family.

A Superior Court judge last year found the man guilty of harassment, which is a low-level petty disorderly offense, and contempt of court. He was sentenced to one year of probation and ordered to pay "standard minimum fines."

The man's text included the following:

... You will die a slow and painfully death. We will all laugh. Your kids want nothing to do with you. You will never see [the parties' son], and every penny you make going forward will be taken from you. I have contacted Judge S. There will be a warrant for your arrest shortly. ... Die and let everyone rest in peace.

The man appealed, arguing that "the First Amendment prohibits criminalizing the words which one chooses to express one's self, absent the use of fighting words."

He also argued that his text message was only bluster -- not a true threat -- and that he "was merely frustrated" by his ex-wife's "obstinate response," according to the appellate decision's summary.

The appellate court, however, was not persuaded, saying that state law describes harassment as anything likely to cause annoyance or alarm, which the Somerset County Prosecutor's Office proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellate court sided with the trial judge, who found that the text had no legitimate purpose and that there was nothing that the ex-wife had written that "would have provoked an outrageous, horrific, threatening response."

The woman had been physically victimized by the man, a gun owner, during their marriage and believed that he was capable of executing the threat, even though he was living in New York and is disabled, the appellate panel said.

"On the other hand, the record contains no support for defendant's suggestion he was merely expressing himself, perhaps in a vulgar manner," the appellate panel added, explaining that the harassment law has "survived constitutional challenge" in the past because it is aimed at conduct that is harassing, not at speech.